건강과 대안 » 건강

[FTA] USTR, 한EU FTA로 도입된 ‘화학물질의 등록 및 평가에 관한 법’ 공식 항의

건강과대안 — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 03:19:57 +0000

환경과 건강에 관한 관심이 높은 EU 측의 요청에 따라 한EU FTA에 의해 도입된
REACH제도(부속서 2-마 화학물질)가 환경과 건강보다는 기업의 이윤이나 영업비밀을
더 강조하는 미국의 입장이 반영된 한미FTA와 충돌하는 사례가 발생했습니다.

USTR이 한국 정부에 ‘화학물질의 등록 및 평가에 관한 법(화평법)’에 관해 공식
항의하는 서한을 전달했다는 소식입니다.

이러한 환경 및 건강에 관한 규제 중에서 GMO에 관한 규제도 EU와 미국의 입장이
상이하여 향후 충돌할 가능성이 있는 분야입니다.

======================================

USTR, 한국정부에’화평법’공식 항의…유럽 규제보다 강도 높아 통상마찰로 비화 가능성

한국경제 2013-08-27 05:14:12 2013-08-27 A16면

http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2013082604831

신규 화학물질은 모두 등록, 대표적 독소조항으로 꼽혀

지난 5월 제정돼 2015년부터 시행되는 ‘화학물질의 등록 및 평가에 관한 법(화평법)’이 한국에 진출해 있는 미국 등 해외기업들의 강한 반발에 직면한 것은 그만큼 부작용이 많을 것으로 예상되기 때문이다. 특히 화평법이 벤치마킹한 유럽연합(EU)의 신화학물질 관리제도(REACH)보다 규제 강도가 강한 것이 문제라는 지적이다. 김문수 경기지사도 최근 한국경제신문과의 인터뷰를 통해 “이 법이 그대로 시행될 경우 화학물질을 많이 사용하는 반도체 디스플레이 분야의 중소제조업체들이 공멸의 위기에 빠질 것”이라고 강력한 우려를 표명했다.

화평법은 국내에 유통되는 모든 화학물질의 위해성 여부를 분석·평가한 뒤 그 결과를 정부에 보고하고 등록하도록 의무화한 법이다. 국내에서 사용되고 있는 화학물질을 연간 1 이상, 신규 화학물질은 용량에 상관없이 수입하거나 제조하는 업체는 정부에 해당 물질의 유해성 자료를 제출해야 한다. 이 법은 화학물질로부터 국민의 건강을 보호하고 화학산업 경쟁력을 높이기 위해 마련됐다.

외국계 기업들이 중점적으로 지적하고 있는 것은 화평법의 제재 수위가 다른 나라의 관련 법보다 높아 무역 장벽이 될 수도 있다는 대목이다. 특히 신규 화학물질은 용량에 상관없이 모두 등록해야 한다는 부분이 독소 조항으로 꼽힌다. 유럽의 REACH는 신규 화학 물질도 연간 1 이상만 정부에 보고하도록 돼 있다. 국내 유통되는 대부분 신규 화학 물질은 외국계 기업이 제조·판매하고 있다.

주무부처인 환경부도 당초 무역 마찰을 우려해 지난해 법안을 발의할 때 신규 화학물질은 연간 1 이상만 등록하도록 했었다. 하지만 4월 국회 논의 과정에서 신규 화학물질의 규제 범위가 용량에 상관없이 모두 정부에 보고하도록 강화됐다.

현재 국내 업계가 우려하는 것은 비용 증가다. 국회입법조사처에 따르면 화학물질 등록 시 판매업체들은 건당 최소 2955만원에서 최대 4억9660만원의 비용이 추가로 발생할 것으로 분석됐다.

이 비용은 화학물질을 사용하는 제조업체들에 일정 부분 전가돼 우리 기업들의 경쟁력을 떨어뜨릴 가능성이 높다는 것이 업계의 우려다. 환경부는 이 같은 현실을 감안해 기존 화학물질에 대해서는 등록유예기간을 주고 동일한 화학물질에 대해서는 제조·수입업자가 공동으로 자료를 제출하도록 했다. 예를 들어 똑같은 화학물질을 수입하는 5개 업체가 정부에 자료를 공동 제출하기 때문에 부담이 5분의 1로 줄어든다.

하지만 이 정도로는 화평법의 부작용을 충분히 걸러내기 어렵다는 것이 국내외 기업들의 중론이다.

일각에선 제조업체의 영업 비밀이 유출될 가능성을 제기하고 있다. 예를 들어 화학물질 수입·제조업체가 반도체 제조업체에 화학물질을 판매했는데 정부에 이 사실을 알리는 과정에서 반도체 제조업체가 사용하는 화학물질 성분, 용량 등을 파악할 수 있다는 것이다.

김주완 기자 kjwan@hankyung.com

====================================================

위해성 적은 품목·제한적 용도 등엔 면제규정 둬

[화평법·화관법에 관한 오해와 진실]파이낸셜뉴스 기사입력 2013-08-27 04:26 2013년 08월 27일자 신문 2면
http://www.fnnews.com/view?ra=Sent0801m_View&corp=fnnews&arcid=201308270426143362614336&cDateYear=2013&cDateMonth=08&cDateDay=27

‘화학물질의 등록 및 평가에 관한 법(화평법)’과 유해화학물질 관리법(화관법)이 뜨거운 감자로 떠오르고 있다. 정부안대로 시행될 경우 국내 산업계의 근간을 흔들 수 있다는 재계의 하소연 때문이다. 그러나 환경부는 재계 일각의 우려는 기우에 불과하다고 주장하고 있다. 오히려 글로벌 기업들의 무분별한 국내 진입을 막고 세계 시장에서 경쟁력도 강화할 수 있다는 게 환경부의 설명이다.

■화학물질 등록면제 존재

26일 정부와 산업계 등에 따르면 우선 화평법에서 논란이 되고 있는 사항은 연간 사용량 100㎏ 미만의 소량 신규화학물질과 조사.연구개발 목적인 화학물질에 대해서도 예외 없이 등록할 것을 규정하고 있다는 부분이다. 등록을 면제하는 예외조항이 있었지만 개정안에서 그것을 삭제했다는 설명이다. 이렇게 되면 기업들은 모든 화학물질의 유해성 여부를 분석, 평가한 뒤 그 결과 매번 정부에 보고해야 하고 위해물질로 판정날 경우 더 이상 사용을 할 수 없다는 논리다. 등록 및 평가에 평균 10개월이나 소요되기 때문에 제품 출시가 지연될 가능성도 있다고 업계는 걱정한다.

그러나 화평법에는 전량 수출하기 위해 연간 10t 이하로 제조.수입되는 화학물질 등은 향후 대통령령으로 따로 정해 환경부장관이 확인하면 등록을 면제한다. 해당 물질은 일부 등록 자료도 제출을 면제해 준다. 쉽게 말해 면제조항을 삭제하지 않았다는 것이다.

예컨대 화학물질 안정성이 크거나 일부 제한된 용도로만 사용되는 등 노출 시 위해성이 상대적으로 낮은 경우는 등록을 면제해준다. 환경부는 연구개발(R&D)용일 경우 등록면제 대상에 포함시키는 안을 고려 중이다.

기간도 평균 10개월이 걸리지도 않는다. 화평법은 13조를 통해 심사.평가와 상관없이 등록여부만 통지받으면 제조.수입 가능하다고 돼 있다. 등록여부는 등록 신청을 받은 날부터 30일 이내에 결정.통지할 수 있도록 환경부령에서 정할 계획이다. 즉 한 달이면 화학물질을 수입.제조할 수 있다는 뜻이다. 소량 화학물질은 등록 때 자료 제출이 줄어들기 때문에 기간은 더욱 단축될 가능성이 높다.

모든 위해물질이 사용할 수 없는 것도 아니다. 위해성 정도, 사회.경제적 영향, 대체물질 여부 등을 사전에 따져본 뒤 취급자나 국민생활 노출 위해성이 큰 물질에 대해서만 일정 용도에서 제한.금지한다.

또 다른 논란거리는 영업비밀 침해 여부다. 영업비밀의 정보제공 또는 공개의무로 인해 국내 기술이 해외 경쟁업체에 노출될 수 있다는 걱정이다. 하지만 기업이 우려하는 ‘혼합비율’은 정보제공 대상에서 제외하고 사용량은 공정별 취급이 아니라 업체별 총량을 제공한다. 오히려 산업계에선 일부 외국계 화학업체의 불순한 목적을 의심하고 있다. 화평법이 본격 적용될 경우 우리나라 시장에서 경쟁력이 떨어질 것이 분명하기 때문에 한국 법인을 통해 전방위 로비를 벌이고 있다는 것이다.

■과징금 ‘매출액의 5%’는 과장

화관법은 화학물질 유출 시 해당 사업장 매출액의 5%(단일 사업장 2.5%)를 내야 한다는 게 논란의 핵심이다. 이 부분 역시 사실과 차이가 있다. 단순히 화학사고가 발생했다고 무조건 영업정지 최대 6개월 내지 매출액 대비 5% 과징금을 부과하는 게 아니다. 위반행위의 종류 등에 따른 과징금의 부과기준은 하위법령에서 따로 정한다. 그러나 다른 법률에서 정하는 벌칙과 크게 다르지 않을 것이라는 게 정부 설명이다. 다시 말해 화학물질을 유출했더라도 ‘실수’로 인정되면 계도·경고에 그친다.

다만 고의·악의적이어서 사고라고 할 수 없을 정도로 범죄가 명백하거나 구미 불산 가스 누출사고처럼 수십명의 사상자와 수백억원의 피해액을 냈을 경우에는 사실상 더 이상 영업을 할 수 없도록 최대 벌칙인 영업정지 6개월 또는 매출액의 5%를 과징금으로 부과할 방침이다. 정부 관계자는 “화학물질 관리는 징벌이 아닌 사고예방을 목적으로 하는 것이며 일률적으로 5%가 적용되는 게 아니라 책임에 비례해 처분이 설정된다”고 설명했다.

jjw@fnnews.com 정지우 기자=====================

(외교통상부 북미EU통상과)(박주선의원, 2011/9/5자 요청)

58. REACH 관련

가. EU REACH에 따른 국내법령 제․개정경과 및 입법 계획

나. REACH 제도의 법적 근거(국내법/국제법 구분)

다. REACH 제도가 국내 관련산업에 미치는 영향

□ EU REACH에 따른 국내법령 제․개정경과 및 입법 계획

ㅇ「화학물질 등록 및 평가 등에 관한 법률」입법경과

- 입안 및 관계부처 협의(‘10.12～’11.2)

- 이해관계자 포럼 구성․운영(‘10.12～’11.6)

- 입법예고(‘11.2～’11.4, 60일)

- 산업계 대상 설명회 등 이해관계자 의견수렴(‘11.3～’11.6, 6회)

- 환경부 자체규제심사 통과(‘11.6.22)

- ‘11년말 국회제출을 목표로 입법 추진 중

※ 환경부는 주요 쟁점사안에 대해 관계부처(지경부, 고용부 등)와 협의 중

□ REACH 제도의 법적 근거

ㅇ REACH는 ’06.12월 유럽의회에서 채택되어, ‘07.6월부터 시행중

- REACH는 EU회원국 전체에 적용

□ REACH 제도가 국내 관련 산업에 미치는 영향

ㅇ REACH 시행에 따라 전세계의 對EU 수출 기업은 REACH의 등록․허가․신고 등의 규제를 이행 필요

ㅇ 각국 개별기업은 EU 역내에서 제조하거나 수입하는 연간 1톤 이상의 화학물질에 대해 ‘08.6.1～11.30 기간 사전등록을 실시하였으며, ’08.12.1 부터 본등록이 진행 중

- 현재까지 우리나라는 317개 업체가 사전등록 완료하였으며, 54개 업체가 본등록 완료

※ 화학물질 배출량 및 위해성에 따라 차등하여 ‘08.12.1부터 ’18.5.31까지 본등록 실시

․ 1차(‘08.12.1～’10.11.30) : 연간배출량 1,000톤 이상

․ 2차(‘11.6.1～’13.5.31) : 연간배출량 100톤 이상

․ 3차(‘13.6.1～’18.5.31) : 연간배출량 1톤 이상

ㅇ REACH 규정 위반시 해당제품은 회수 등 강력한 제재 대상

- 단,

우리기업들의 경우 ‘11.9월 현재 REEACH 규정 위반 사례가 없는 것으로 파악

[한미FTA] 국제환경법센터(CIEL) : 한미FTA 투자관련 조항 : 외국인투자자로의 근본적 권력이전

건강과대안 — Sun, 19 May 2013 12:43:58 +0000

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (CIEL)

INVESTMENT PROVISIONS IN THE KOREA FTA: A RADICAL SHIFT OF POWER TO FOREIGN INVESTORS

SUMMARY

The investment provisions in the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korea FTA) constitute a major and potentially devastating change in U.S. investment policy. For example, new language radically changes the test for what constitutes an expropriation, making it considerably more likely that good faith environmental, health and safety regulations will be found to be expropriations requiring compensation. Other language makes that perverse result even more likely with respect to efforts to regulate emerging technologies, such as biotechnology or nanotechnology. Another example is that new language declares that all contract rights are property rights subject to investor-State arbitration. These and other provisions differ in important respects from language in preceding U.S. agreements—including the U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and other recent free trade agreements (FTAs). The expropriation provisions in the Korean FTA have no precedent in U.S. law, and they unquestionably provide foreign investors greater protection than U.S. investors have in the United States.

[여성 건강] 풀리지 않는 수수께끼 ‘여성호르몬 요법’

건강과대안 — Tue, 07 May 2013 12:38:32 +0000

<풀리지 않는 수수께끼 '여성호르몬 요법'>

연합뉴스 | 입력 2013.05.07 09:23 | 수정 2013.05.07 09:37

(서울=연합뉴스) 하채림 기자 = 도무지 알 수 없는 게 여자의 마음이라고 했던가. 의학 연구자에겐 여성호르몬이 바로 그런 존재다.

가임기 여성은 남성에 비해 고혈압 환자가 적고 혈중 콜레스테롤 수치도 낮은 편이다. 그러나 일단 폐경기에 이르러 여성호르몬 수치가 떨어지면 혈압과 혈중 콜레스테롤 수치가 급상승하고 심혈관질환 위험도 덩달아 높아진다. 그렇다면 폐경기 여성에게 여성호르몬을 투여하면 심혈관질환 위험을 낮출 수 있지 않을까.

연구자들도 똑같이 생각했다. 실제로 1970년대 미국에서 간호사 12만명을 대상으로 한 ‘간호사건강연구’(Nurse Health Study) 등 과거 임상연구에서도 여성호르몬요법(HRT)을 쓰면 심장병 예방효과가 있다는 분석이 도출된 바 있다.

제약업계의 관심은 학계 이상으로 컸다. 폐경기 여성에게 호르몬요법이 심혈관질환 예방 효과가 입증된다면 전세계적으로 수억명이나 되는 ‘폐경기 여성 환자’를 대상으로 마케팅을 펼칠 수 있을 게 아닌가. 가설이 증명되기만 한다면 또 하나의 ‘노다지’ 의약품이 나올 판이었다.

미국 보건당국은 이런 기대를 업고 1991년 ‘여성건강계획’(WHI; Women’s Health Initiative)이라는 야심찬 프로젝트를 시작했다. 건강한 50∼79세 폐경 여성 16만명을 대상으로 호르몬요법이 심혈관질환, 암, 골다공증에 미치는 효과를 관찰했다.

결과는 기대를 배신했다. 에스트로겐·프로게스테론 복합 요법을 받은 여성들이 유방암 발병 위험이 비교집단에 비해 더 높게 나타났다. 심장병과 뇌줄중 위험도 더 높았다. 미국 보건당국은 2002년 “이번 임상연구에서 사용한 호르몬요법의 위험이 유익을 상회한다는 판단에 따라 연구를 조기 중단한다”고 발표했다.

WHI 연구 실패 후폭풍은 거셌다. 의사의 권유로 호르몬요법을 받던 폐경기 여성들이 대거 치료를 중단했다. 갱년기 증상은 삶의 질 문제지만 유방암은 생사의 문제였다. 비만 등 다른 위험인자에 비하면 그 영향이 미미하다고 아무리 설명을 해도 대중의 두려움은 수그러들지 않았다.

의학계는 포기하지 않았다. 이전 연구결과가 모두 엉터리는 아닐 것이란 믿음이 있었다. 상반된 결과의 원인을 따져본 결과 WHI 연구의 여성은 기존 연구에 비해 나이가 더 많았고 비만이나 심장혈관 상태가 안 좋은 경우도 많았다. 여성들이 겉으로 봐서는 건강했지만 혈관상태는 이미 나빠지고 있었기 때문에 결과가 부정적으로 나온 것이라는 해석에 점차 힘이 실렸다.

2006년 비영리기관이 크로노스장수연구소가 ‘젊은’ 42∼58세 폐경여성 727명을 꼼꼼히 골라 호르몬(에스트로겐)요법 연구를 다시 시작했다(KEEPS Trial). 참가자들의 체중과 혈관상태까지 꼼꼼히 미리 점검했다. 폐경학자들은 이번에야말로 원하는 결과가 나오리라고 기대했다.

작년 10월 KEEPS 연구의 결과가 발표되는 미국 북미폐경학회 보고에 의학계의 시선이 집중됐다. 가설대로 결과가 나온다면 폐경 초기 여성에서 호르몬요법의 심장질환 예방효과가 입증되는 것이었다.

결과가 발표되는 순간 참석자들은 실망감으로 입을 떼지 못했다. 호르몬요법은 심장병 위험을 나타내는 지표에 전혀 영향을 미치지 못했고 치매 예방효과(인지기능 향상)도 없었다. 전문가들 역시 더 이상 설명할 힘이 남아 있지 않은 탓인지 1차 결과 공개 후 7개월이 지나고도 지금까지 논문조차 안나왔다. 날고긴다는 의학자들이 수십년간 매달리고도 여성호르몬의 작용을 이해하지 못한 셈이다.

그나마 지금까지 축적된 연구로 얻은 공감대는 ‘여성호르몬을 만성질환 예방용으로는 권하지 않는다’는 정도다. 초기 폐경 여성에서 얼굴이 붉어지거나 밤새 땀을 흘리는 신체증상과 우울증 같은 갱년기 증상에는 크게 도움이 되고, 골밀도가 급격히 소실되는 것도 막을 수 있다.

박형무 중앙대의대 교수(산부인과)는 7일 “초기 폐경 여성의 삶의 질을 높이고 뼈를 보호하는 데 호르몬요법이 효과적”이라며 “만성질환 예방 목적으로 장기간 투여하지 않는다면 안전에 문제가 없다”고 설명했다.

호르몬요법을 쓸 수 없다면 승마(Black Cohosh) 등 여성호르몬과 작용이 비슷한 ‘식물성분 호르몬’을 함유한 갱년기 증상 개선제를 권하기도 한다.

박 교수는 “식물성분 제제는 호르몬 요법처럼 확실한 효과는 기대하기 어렵지만 체내에서 여성호르몬과 비슷한 작용을 하는 것으로 알려져 있다”며 “환자의 거부감 등으로 다른 대안이 없을 때 시도해볼 수 있는 방법”이라고 말했다.

tree@yna.co.kr

(끝)

[보건] 세계화, 기후변화, 그리고 건강 (N Engl J Med )

건강과대안 — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:09:30 +0000

Globalization, Climate Change, and Human Health

Anthony J. McMichael, M.B., B.S., Ph.D.

N Engl J Med 2013; 368:1335-1343April 4, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1109341
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1109341?query=TOC#t=article

The global scale, interconnectedness, and economic intensity of contemporary human activity are historically unprecedented,1 as are many of the consequent environmental and social changes. These global changes fundamentally influence patterns of human health, international health care, and public health activities.2 They constitute a syndrome, not a set of separate changes, that reflects the interrelated pressures, stresses, and tensions arising from an overly large world population, the pervasive and increasingly systemic environmental impact of many economic activities, urbanization, the spread of consumerism, and the widening gap between rich and poor both within and between countries.

In recent decades, international connectivity has increased on many fronts, including the flow of information, movements of people, trading patterns, the flow of capital, regulatory systems, and cultural diffusion. These exponential increases in demographic, economic, commercial, and environmental indexes have been labeled the Great Acceleration.3 Remarkably, the resultant environmental effects are now altering major components of the Earth system.4,5 The current geologic epoch is being called the Anthropocene (successor to the Holocene epoch)5,6 in recognition of the global force that Homo sapiens has become, pushing or distorting Earth’s great natural global systems beyond boundaries considered to be safe for continued human social and biologic well-being.4,7 The loss of biodiversity, the greatly amplified global circulation of bioactive nitrogen compounds, and human-induced climate change have already reached levels that are apparently unsafe.4

These changes pose fundamental threats to human well-being and health.4,7 For example, a positive relationship has been observed between regional trends in climate (rising temperatures and declining rainfall) and childhood stunting in Kenya since 1975, indicating that as projected warming and drying continue to occur along with population growth, food yields and nutritional health will be impaired.8 These human-induced climatic changes often act in concert with environmental, demographic, and social stressors that variously influence regional food yields, nutrition, and health. Furthermore, at the current level of global connectedness and interdependence, the environmental impact of human activity has a wider geographic range, although its influence may be offset somewhat by more effective global alerts and more rapid distribution of food aid. The extreme heat and wildfires in western Russia in the summer of 2010 destroyed one third of that country’s wheat yield, and the subsequent ban on exported grain contributed to a rise in the price of wheat worldwide, exacerbating hunger in Russia (where flour prices increased by 20%) and in low-income urban populations in countries such as Pakistan and Egypt.9,10 On the economic front, the recent global financial crisis has underscored the domino-like interdependence of national economies.

Effects of Globalization on Population Health

Global influences on population health such as those described above transcend the more specific, focused frame within which international health issues are addressed.2 The processes of global change are more systemic, involving disruption or depletion (not merely local pollution). Remediating or adapting to these changes requires an understanding of dynamic systems, their complexity and associated uncertainties, and coordinated policy responses across relevant sectors. The relationships between these pervasive processes of change and human health are shown in Figure 1Figure 1Influence on Human Health of Changes Related to Globalization..

Demographic Changes

Population growth is often overlooked in the discourse on global change, including its relation to the mitigation (abatement) of climate change, to which the contribution of global emissions is obvious.11 The projections by the United Nations that today’s population of 7 billion will increase to 9.3 billion by 205012 should reactivate the debate about whether we can succeed in pursuing realistic objectives for a healthy climate without curtailing the actual number of humans pressing on the environment. Furthermore, the negative-feedback loop of excessive population pressure on regional environments (involving soil exhaustion, water depletion, and the loss of various wild animal and plant food species) not only exacerbates various ongoing worldwide environmental and ecologic changes but also entrenches conditions of poverty and disadvantage. In these latter circumstances, fertility rates tend to remain high.

Some additional increase in the world population is inevitable in countries with high fertility rates, given the demographic flywheel momentum of populations weighted toward the young. Meanwhile, moderate gains have been made in facilitating education for girls, although progress in this, as well as in the provision of adequate education about reproduction and reproductive choice, remains slow in many low-income countries.13 Where unplanned pregnancy rates remain high (e.g., Timor-Leste and Nigeria), so do risks to maternal and child health.

Social Changes and Economic Activity

Many other aspects of globalization influence population health,2 including the accelerated emergence of new infectious diseases,14,15 the near-ubiquitous rise in the rates of obesity and associated noncommunicable diseases as daily bodily energy budgets (food energy input vs. physical energy output) shift into surplus,16 the spread of cigarette marketing, the effects of climate change,17,18 increases in resistance to antimicrobial agents, and health risks in the workplace due to the deregulation of international labor markets.2 Looming large in the background as additional determinants of health are the persistent, even increasing, disparities in wealth, education, autonomy, and social inclusion.19 There are, of course, certain aspects of globalization that are beneficial to health, such as the enhanced flow of information, improvements in internationally coordinated vaccination programs and systems to respond to infectious diseases, and a greater capacity for long-distance responses to disasters.

Adverse global influences on health, such as rising food prices and extended ranges of some infectious diseases, have also impeded attainment of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.20 Future global health goals must be better integrated with the fundamental influences of poverty, inequity, illiteracy, climate change, land-use patterns, and food insecurity on health. After the Rio+20 Conference (2012), the Millennium Development Goals are to be replaced by Sustainable Development Goals in 2016, reflecting the principle set forth at the original Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) that concern for humans must be at the center of sustainable development. Nevertheless, concern for human health is not yet near that center. This reflects the continuing misperception of what health means and the dominance of a narrow, clinically based view that seemingly does not take into account the fundamental need, in improving population health, to address the poor fit between environmental and sociocultural conditions and basic human biologic and psychological needs.

Environmental and Ecologic Changes

The deep-seated, essentially ecologic risks to population health cannot be countered effectively at the local level alone. Climate change induced by human activities, for example, is due to the globally aggregated excess of greenhouse emissions. Primary prevention of health problems arising from such global environmental and sociodemographic changes therefore requires coordinated international policy, supplemented by more local policy-making and action. For example, the World Trade Organization should give greater priority to averting the adverse health and environmental effects of international free trade.21 There is also a need for instruments similar to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control1,22 and the WHO Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, in relation to the emergence of infectious diseases,23 as well as the United Nations Environmental Programme Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer.24

The following four examples describe other environmental and ecologic changes on a global scale that will increasingly influence the world’s health. First, the probability that new strains of influenza virus will emerge is increasing, particularly in the rural villages of Southeast Asia and East Asia.14,25 The risk increases with population growth; the juxtaposition of traditional backyard pig, chicken, and duck farming with intensified commercial poultry production; and environmental changes that affect the flight paths of migrating wild birds.

Second, the decline in available seafood protein (which is important for many low-income coastal populations) is a threat to health and reflects the unprecedented combination of ocean warming, acidification (due to increased uptake of carbon dioxide), deoxygenation,26 destruction of coastal fish nurseries, and overfishing.27

Third, diverse health risks are posed by the deprivation, displacement, and conflict that result from shortages of fresh water.8,28 Many populations, such as those in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Egypt, and Iraq, live downstream on great rivers that traverse several countries. In many cases, river flows are threatened by the loss of glacier mass and snowpack due to global warming and by the increased diversion of flow by neighbors upstream.

Finally, the need to maintain food supplies and adequate nutrition for the increasing world population presents a major challenge.29 Global food production also faces pressures as a result of reduced yield due to land degradation, water shortages, and climate change and the rising demand for animal foods among middle-income populations. Furthermore, agriculture (especially livestock production) accounts for around one fourth of global greenhouse-gas emissions.30 Thus, there are growing pressures to transform food production (e.g., more mixed cropping and inclusion of acceptable genetically modified crops), distribution, and consumption. Since the environmental, particularly climatic, effects of producing red meat from methane-producing ruminants (e.g., cattle, sheep, and goats) are so great, thought needs to be given to the question of whether production of this protein source will need to be curtailed — while allowing a sufficient increase to ensure safe childhood nutrition in the many poorer populations, which currently consume levels of red meat that are lower than those in the overconsuming rich populations by a factor of 10.30 The global food security issue is further complicated by the ongoing land grab in eastern Africa and elsewhere by richer countries seeking investment opportunities and self-insurance against future land, food, and biofuel shortages (e.g., Middle Eastern oil-producing states, China, and South Korea).31

These four examples also confirm that, in a world of global and systemic changes, these individual changes for the most part do not impinge on population health in isolation; instead, they typically act jointly and often interact. Specific examples are discussed in the next section, which reviews the health risks posed by climate change.

Global Climate Change

Global climate change is part of the larger Anthropocene syndrome of human-induced global environmental changes. These include land degradation, ocean acidification, and disruptions and depletions of the stratospheric ozone concentration, soil fertility, fresh-water resources, biodiversity stocks and ecosystem functioning, and global nitrogen and phosphorus cycles.4 Greenhouse emissions from fossil fuel–based power generation and transport and from the agriculture and mining sectors increase the heat-retaining capacity of the lower atmosphere, resulting in global warming (see the interactive graphic at NEJM.org). In addition, deforestation and ocean saturation have added to greenhouse warming by reducing the capacity of terrestrial and marine environments to absorb extra carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere. Also contributing to such warming are any ongoing natural variations in climate caused by cosmologic and geologic influences.32

Most of the global warming since 1950 (an increase of 0.7°C) has been the result of human activity.32 Annual global emissions of carbon dioxide have increased over the past decade, as have the rates of sea-level rise, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the number of extreme weather events.33 Without substantial and prompt international action to abate these emissions, average global temperatures (relative to the year 2000) are likely to rise by 1 to 2°C by 2050 and by 3 to 4°C by 2100, including increases of up to 6 to 7°C at high northern latitudes.33,34 Additional warming of another 0.7°C is locked in from the extra radiative energy already absorbed by the lower atmosphere and, in turn, by the oceans, though not yet manifested as surface warming. An average rise of 4°C would return Earth’s temperature to a level not experienced for 10 million to 20 million years.35

Rainfall patterns will also change, with rainfall increasing in some regions and seasons and decreasing in others. Modeling consistently projects an increase in regional aridity, and in the geographic range and severity of droughts, during this century.36 The frequency, and perhaps intensity, of extreme weather events is also expected to increase in most regions — and may well have already begun to do so.37

Effects of Climate Change on Human Health

The complex nature of climate change and its environmental and social manifestations results in diverse risks to human health.17,18,38 A three-way classification of these risks and causal pathways is shown in Table 1Table 1Categories of Climate-Change Risks to Health, According to Causal Pathway..39

Our current, rather skewed knowledge of climate–health relationships has come from epidemiologic studies of health risks in relation to differences and extremes in temperature and from quasicyclical climatic events such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation phenomenon. However, most of the health risks will arise from climatic influences on environmental systems and social conditions that affect food yields, water supplies, the stability of infectious disease patterns, and the integrity of natural and human-built protection against natural disasters (including forest cover, windbreaks, mangroves, vulnerable constructed seawalls, and urban water-drainage systems) and from the adverse health consequences of social disruption, displacement of communities, and conflict situations.18,38

Key examples of these types of causal paths are shown in Figure 2Figure 2Processes and Pathways through Which Climate Change Influences Human Health.. Many of the indirect effects of climate change will be simultaneously influenced by other global changes and sociodemographic pressures that act in conjunction with climate change. Food yields and, hence, nutritional status reflect changes not only in climate40 but also in water supplies, soil fertility, nitrogen levels, biodiversity (e.g., pollinators and pest predators), and the health and vitality of farm workers.

It is not surprising that the health effects of climate change will be predominantly adverse.38 After all, human biology, domesticated food sources, and culture in general have evolved over many millennia within the usual prevailing climate. Furthermore, populations everywhere will be vulnerable to increasingly severe extreme weather events.

Some beneficial health effects are expected to occur, at least in the earlier stages of climate change.38 In some temperate zones, milder winters may lead to fewer wintertime deaths from myocardial infarction and stroke, and in some low-latitude regions, hotter and drier conditions may reduce mosquito survival and, hence, mosquito-borne infection.

Populations living in diverse social, economic, and physical conditions will be affected differently by climate changes.18,38 Low-income and remote populations are more vulnerable to physical hazards, undernutrition, diarrheal and other infectious diseases, and the health consequences of displacement. Populations on low-lying islands and in coastal areas, such as Bangladesh, are vulnerable to increased storm surges and flooding as the sea level rises. In Arctic circumpolar regions, communities may undergo enforced changes in diet as land and marine animal populations migrate or decline and as access to traditional food sources becomes physically more difficult.41

The likely future effects of climate change on various health outcomes have been modeled with the use of plausible scenarios of future climate change that have been agreed on internationally. For example, in temperate countries, as summers become hotter and heat waves more severe, modeling indicates that, from around mid-century, additional heat-related deaths will progressively overwhelm the number of deaths averted as a result of milder winters.42,43 Such estimates of the extreme effects of weather will improve as the modeling of changes in climatic variability under climate-change conditions improves and as researchers take better account of physiological, behavioral, and technological adaptation by populations over time.

In China, the modeling of medium-scenario warming indicates that the transmission zone of freshwater snail–mediated schistosomiasis will extend northward, putting another 20 million people at risk by 2050.44 Such model-based estimation of the direction and approximate extent of likely change in health risks is an important resource for decision-making about both climate-change abatement and localized adaptation.

Meanwhile, an important research task is to identify ongoing changes in health risks and outcomes that can be reasonably attributed to recent climate change. Given the multivariate causation of most human health outcomes, attribution is rarely simple.45 Nevertheless, over the past decade, observed changes in some health outcomes, viewed collectively, suggest a climate signal (Table 2Table 2Indicators of Early Health Effects of Climate Change.).18,38,46

Health Risks and Benefits of Climate-Change Mitigation and Adaptation

The mitigation of climate change is a crucial first-order task for the world. However, while governments continue to wrestle with this unprecedented, complex political and ethical task, the more immediate challenge for the health sector is to identify the main regional health threats posed by climate change and ensure the development of risk-lessening adaptations.

Adaptation Strategies

Adaptation capacities and strategies will differ greatly among populations. They will be particularly important where the rates of preexisting disease (e.g., childhood diarrhea and malnutrition) are already high and therefore, in absolute terms, would become considerably higher because of the multiplier effects of climate change. Effective adaptive strategies will mostly require collaboration among diverse government sectors, research disciplines, and communities.

During heat waves, deaths and hospitalizations predominate among the elderly, patients with chronic cardiorespiratory disease, and persons living in low-grade housing. Early heat wave–warning systems, community caregiver schemes for vulnerable persons, well-insulated housing, and educational advice from primary health care providers would lower this risk. Meanwhile, longer-term planning is needed to climate-proof urban residential areas.47

Health Benefits of Climate-Change Mitigation

One favorable aspect of efforts to mitigate climate change is that local health gains will quickly accrue to populations that undertake such efforts.48 Awareness of this potential health dividend — in addition to the longer-term global health benefits — should strengthen support for such actions.

Health benefits will result from mitigating actions that address modes of transport, housing-design standards, energy generation, and agricultural systems (including livestock production). In many poor populations, improvements in environment-related technologies will help to replace indoor-polluting cooking fuels with low-carbon fuels, and improvements in reproductive literacy will lead to fewer, better-spaced pregnancies; both types of improvement reduce pressures on the climate system.11 All these actions will directly reduce well-known risk factors for disease and premature death (e.g., air pollution, sedentary living, and dietary excesses).48 Innovative urban design can have wide-ranging positive effects with regard to energy use, greenhouse-gas emissions, the effects of urban heat islands, patterns of physical activity, social relations, and community cohesion.

Challenges for the Health Sector

The health sector has important roles to play in relation to climate-change abatement and adaptation strategies for lessening unavoidable risks to health (Table 3Table 3Role of the Health Sector in Climate-Change Mitigation (Primary Prevention) and Adaptation (Preparedness, or Secondary Prevention).).49,50 Such strategies would include the “greening” of health care institutions and participation in national health impact assessments and in intersectoral planning of sustainable energy systems, transportation, and urban design. National delegations to international policymaking meetings that address global trends and threats (e.g., the annual conferences convened under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) should include representatives from, or at least substantive briefing by, the formal health sector.

Conclusions

Rapid globalization has brought new, large-scale influences to bear on patterns of human health. Various global-scale changes — economic, social, demographic, and environmental (particularly climatic) — are linked, for example, to the increased prevalence of obesity, changes in regional food yields, the emergence of infectious diseases, the spread of cigarette smoking, and the persistence of health disparities.

Undertaking primary prevention at the source to reduce health risks resulting from these global influences is a formidable challenge. It requires conceptual insights beyond the conventional understanding of causation and prevention, as well as political will, trust, and resources. The complexities of policies to mitigate human-induced climate change are clear. Meanwhile, additional resources and strategies will be needed to reduce the health risks related to global change that have already arisen or are now unavoidable. For populations to live sustainably and with good long-term health, the health sector must work with other sectors in reshaping how human societies plan, build, move, produce, consume, share, and generate energy.

Disclosure forms provided by the author are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

Source Information

From the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Address reprint requests to Dr. McMichael at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia, or at tony.mcmichael@anu.edu.au.

[식품] 2011년 제빵시장 규모 4조7천억, 1인당 우유 70.7kg, 쌀 71.2kg

건강과대안 — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:21:38 +0000

<그래픽> 빵ㆍ우유 소비 현황

빵ㆍ우유 소비 현황” src=”http://img.yonhapnews.co.kr/etc/graphic/YH/2013/03/28/GYH2013032800040004400_P2.jpg”>

(서울=연합뉴스) 김토일 기자 = 28일 식품업계에 따르면 양산 빵, 베이커리 등 제빵시장의 규모는 2011년 현재 4조6천971억원 규모로 2010년 4조1천270억원, 2009년 3조5천878억원에 비해 연평균 15.5%씩 늘어나고 있다.
kmtoil@yna.co.kr
@yonhap_graphics(트위터)
(끝)/김토일

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Vegetarian restaurant buffet, Taipei, Taiwan.

Around the world, vegetarianism is viewed in different lights. In some areas, there is cultural and even legal support, such as in India and the United Kingdom, where food labelling is in place which can make it easier for vegetarians to identify foods compatible with their diets.^[1] The results of a recent International survey suggest the definitions of vegetarianism vary from nation to nation. Vegetarians in some nations consume more animal products than those in other nations.^[2]

[edit] Asia

[edit] China

In China, although full vegetarianism is a fairly rare practice, vegetarianism has been around since at least the 7th century and has been practised by devout Buddhists. In recent years, it has seen a new resurgence in the cities as the emerging middle class in China pay attention to issues of health and diet.^[3] In 2010, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao (溫家寶總理) proposed a nationwide campaign of “one day of vegetarianism every week” (每週一素), mainly as part of a broader environmental platform.^[4]

[edit] Republic of China (Taiwan)

In Taiwan, 1.7 million people, or 10% of the population of Taiwan, follows a vegetarian diet at least some of the time.^[5]^[6] There are more than 6,000 vegetarian eating establishments in Taiwan.^[7] Food labelling laws for vegetarian food are the world’s strictest, because around 2 million Taiwanese use vegetarian food.^[8] A popular movement of “one day vegetarian every week” has been advocated on a national level,^[9] and on a local level, even government bodies are involved, such as the Taipei City Board of Education.^[10]

[edit] India

Vegetarian mark: Mandatory labeling in India to distinguish vegetarian products (left) from non-vegetarian ones (right)

In India, vegetarianism is usually synonymous with lacto vegetarianism. Most restaurants in India clearly distinguish and market themselves as being either “non-vegetarian”, “vegetarian”, or “pure vegetarian”. Vegetarian restaurants abound, usually, many vegetarian (Shakahari: plant-eater, in Sanskrit) options are available. Animal-based ingredients (other than milk and honey) such as lard, gelatin, and meat stock are not used in the traditional cuisine.

According to the 2006 Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation Survey,^[11] 31% of Indians are vegetarians, while another 9% consumes eggs. Among the various communities, vegetarianism was most common among Jain community and then Brahmins at 55%, and less frequent among Muslims (3%) and residents of coastal states. Other surveys cited by FAO^[12] and USDA^[13]^[14] estimate 20%–42% of the Indian population as being vegetarian. These surveys indicate that even Indians who do eat meat, do so infrequently, with less than 30% consuming it regularly, although the reasons are partially economical.^[14]

India has devised a system of marking edible products made from only vegetarian ingredients, with a green dot in a green square. A mark of a brown dot in a brown square conveys that some animal-based ingredients were used.^[15]

Recent growth in India’s organized retail has also been hit by some controversy, because some vegetarians are demanding meatless supermarkets.^[16]

One of India’s largest publishers, S. Chand Group, was criticised for publishing a health textbook aimed at 11 and 12 year olds, entitled “New Healthway”, which said that people who eat meat “easily cheat, lie, forget promises and commit sex crimes”. In a chapter “full of inaccuracies”, it described Eskimos as “lazy, sluggish and short-lived” because of their diet being based on meat. Academics commented that publication of material like this is a major problem for children, but that the Indian government has declined to act because it regards selection of textbooks as the schools’ own choice.^[17]

[edit] Oceania

[edit] Australia

In Australia, some manufacturers who target the vegetarian market will label their foods with the statement “suitable for vegetarians”; however, for foods intended for export to the UK, this labelling can be inconsistent because flavourings in ingredients lists do not need to specify if they come from animal origin. As such, natural flavour could be derived from either plant or animal sources.

Animal rights organisations such as Animal Liberation promote vegan and vegetarian diets. “Vegetarian Week” runs from 01 – 7 October every year,^[18] and food companies are taking advantage of the growing number of vegetarians by producing meat-free alternatives of popular dishes, including sausages and mash and Spaghetti Bolognese.^[19]

According to a 2010 Newspoll Survey, 5% of Australians say they are vegetarians with 2% of them actually eating a vegetarian diet.^[20]

Another 2000 Newspoll survey (commissioned by Sanitarium) shows 44% of Australians report eating at least one meat-free evening meal a week, while 18% said they prefer plant-based meals.

[edit] New Zealand

Similar to other Australasian countries such as Australia, in New Zealand the term vegetarian refers to individuals who eat no animal meat such as pork, chicken, and fish; but may still consume animal products such as milk and eggs. In contrast, the term vegan is used to describe those who do not eat any by-products of animals.^[21] In 2002 New Zealand’s vegetarians made up a tiny minority, between 1-2% of the country’s 4.5 million people ^[22]

As New Zealand and Australia work together to form common food standards (as seen in the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code), there is also a lot of ambiguity surrounding the “natural flavour” ingredients.^[23]

[edit] Europe

The definition of vegetarianism throughout Europe is not uniform, creating the potential for products to be labelled inaccurately.^[1]

[edit] Belgium

Since May 2009, Belgium has the first city in the world (Ghent) with a weekly “veggie day”.^[24] More info about the veggieday here.

[edit] France

In October 2011, the European Vegetarian Union reported that the French government’s Décret 2011-1227 and associated Arrêté (September 30, 2011) effectively outlaws the serving of vegan meals at any public or private school in France. Similar decrees are proposed for kindergartens, hospitals, prisons and retirement homes.^[25]

Studies in the 1990s showed that one million French (1.5% of the total population) called themselves vegetarians, although more recently this number has reportedly increased to 2%.^[26]

[edit] Germany

According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Germany has over six million vegetarians.^[27] A survey conducted by Institut Produkt und Markt, found that 9% of the population (7,380,000 people) are vegetarian,^[28] which the Italian research institute Eurispes reports as the second highest rate of vegetarianism in the European Union (after Italy).^[29]

[edit] Italy

The Italian research institute Eurispes reports that according to the European Vegetarian Union, Italy has over six million vegetarians and the highest rate of vegetarianism in the European Union, at 10% of the population.^[29]

[edit] Netherlands

Vegetarianism is fairly common in the Netherlands. A study has shown that the number of vegetarians out of a population of nearly 16.5 million people increased from 560,000 in 2004 to 720,000 in 2006.^[30]^[31] It is estimated that 4.5% of the Dutch population don’t eat meat.^[32]^[33] The number of part-time vegetarians grew rapidly as well: around 3.5 million Dutch citizens abstain from eating meat a few days a week.^[31]

The sales of meat substitutes has an annual growth of around 25%, making it one of the fastest-growing markets in the Netherlands.^[31] In supermarkets and stores, it is sometimes necessary to read the fine print on products in order to make sure that there are no animal-originated ingredients. Increasingly, however, vegetarian products are labeled with the international “V-label,” overseen by the Dutch vegetarian association Vegetarisch Keurmerk.^[34]

Veganism is uncommon in the Netherlands: the Dutch Association for Veganism estimates that there are approximately 16,000 vegans in the Netherlands, or around 0.1% of the Dutch population.^[35]

[edit] Portugal

The Vegetarian Society of Portugal was founded c. 1908 by Amílcar de Sousa.^[36] In 2007, the number of vegetarians in Portugal was estimated at 30,000, which equates to less than 0.3% of the population.^[37]

[edit] Spain

In Spain, vegetarian restaurants and stores are rare.^[38] Some Spanish vegetarians argue that this situation is due to the fact that the Franco Regime strongly discouraged vegetarianism, which it associated with the political left. It was not until 1975 that doctors were allowed to discuss the health benefits of vegetarianism and vegetarian restaurants were permitted to do business again.^[39]

[edit] Sweden

In Sweden, vegetarian most often means lacto-ovo vegetarian. Most but not all restaurants offer at least one lacto-ovo vegetarian dish.

[edit] Switzerland

According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Switzerland has the second highest rate of vegetarianism in the European Union (even though Switzerland is not in the EU, it was most likely included with the other EU countries for this study).^[27] Older governmental data from 1997 suggest that 2.3% of the population never eat meat and the observed trend seemed to point towards less meat consumption.^[40] Newer studies suggest that the percentage of vegetarians has risen to 5% by 2007.^[40]

[edit] United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, increasing numbers of people have adopted a vegetarian diet since the end of World War II.^[41] The Food Standards Agency Public Attitudes to Food survey 2009 reported that 3% of respondents were found to be “completely vegetarian”, with an additional 5% “partly vegetarian (don’t eat some types of fish or meat)”.^[42] Some independent market studies suggest that vegetarians constitute 7% to 11% of the UK adult population (4 million people).^[43]^[44]^[45]As of 2003^[update], the Vegetarian Society estimates that there are between three and four million vegetarians in the UK.^[46] There are twice as many vegetarian women as men.^[45] Despite the clear classification by the Vegetarian Society, some people in the UK wrongly identify as vegetarians while still eating fish, either for health reasons, or because of differing ethical perspectives on vegetarianism, while others use the term “flexitarian” or part-vegetarian.^[41] As of 2009, people in the UK are now also being identified with the labels “meat-avoiders” and “meat-reducers” by marketeers, denoting people who do not self-identify as vegetarians, but are reducing or avoiding meat for reasons of health or climate change impacts, with one survey identifying 23% of the population as “meat-reducers”, and 10% as “meat-avoiders”, although the same survey indicated the “vast majority” in the UK still eat meat, with one-in-five liking to eat meat every day.^[41] According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the UK has the third highest rate of vegetarianism in the European Union.^[27]

“Vegetarian” and “vegan” are not terms defined in law at either a UK or European level. Nonetheless, foods labelled as suitable for vegetarians or vegans are subject to provisions within the Trades Descriptions Act 1968.^[47] The Food Standards Agency issues guidance on the labelling of foods as suitable for vegetarians:

The term ‘vegetarian’ should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from or with the aid of, products derived from animals that have died, have been slaughtered, or animals that die as a result of being eaten. Animals means farmed, wild or domestic animals, including for example, livestock poultry, game, fish, shellfish, crustaceans, amphibians, tunicates, echinoderms, molluscs, and insects.

—Food Standards Agency^[48]

In addition to voluntary labelling, the Vegetarian Society operates a scheme whereby foods that meet its criteria can be labelled “Vegetarian Society approved”.^[49] Under this scheme, a product is vegetarian if it is free of meat, fowl, fish, shellfish, meat or bone stock, animal or carcass fats, gelatin, aspic, or any other ingredient resulting from slaughter, such as rennet.^[50] Cheese is often labelled as well, making it possible to identify cheeses that have been made with rennet derived from non-animal sources. Many hard cheeses in continental Europe contain rennet derived from animal sources.^[51]

[edit] The Americas

[edit] Brazil

In 2004, Marly Winckler, President of the Brazilian Vegetarian Society claimed that 5% of the population is vegetarian.^[52] According to a 2012 survey undertaken by the Brazilian Institute of Public Opinion and Statistics, 8% of the population, that is, 15.2 million people, identified themselves as vegetarian. The city of São Paulo has the most vegetarians in absolute terms (792,120 people), while Fortaleza has the highest percentage, at 14% of the total population.^[53]

The main reason cited is concern for animal rights. Marly Winckler claims that the central reasons for the deforestation of the Amazon are expansive livestock raising (mainly cattle) and soybean crops, most of it for use as an animal feeding, and a minor percentage for edible oil processing (being direct human consumption for use as food nearly negligible),^[54] claims that are widely known to have a basis.^[55]^[56]^[57]^[58]

As in Canada, vegetarianismo (Portuguese pronunciation: [veʒiˌtaɾjɐ̃ˈnizmu]) is usually synonymous with lacto-ovo-vegetarianism and vegetarians are sometimes wrongly assumed to be pescetarians and/or pollotarians who tolerate the flesh of fish or poultry, respectively. Nevertheless, veganism, and freeganism, are very common among Brazilian anarchists, punks and members of other groups in the counterculture and/or left-wing movements. Other beliefs generally associated with Brazilian vegetarians are Eastern philosophies and religions, New Age and Spiritism, while it is also commonly said to be related to the emo and indie youth subcultures as influence from the local punks. Brazilian vegetarians reportedly tend to be urban, of middle or upper class^[52] and live in the Central-Southern half of the country. Since the 1990s, and specially over the 2000s, several vegetarian and vegan restaurants appeared in the metropolitan regions of São Paulo, Porto Alegre, Curitiba and Rio de Janeiro.^[59]

[edit] Canada

In Canada, vegetarianism is usually synonymous with ovo-lacto vegetarianism. However, vegetarians are sometimes wrongly assumed to be pescetarians or pollotarians. Approximately 4.0% of adults are vegetarians as of 2003^[update].^[60]

[edit] United States

Vegetarianism was endorsed in the United States in 1838 by the American Health Convention. In 1971, 1 percent of U.S. citizens described themselves as vegetarians. A 2013 Public Policy Polling survey found 13% of Americans identify as vegetarian (6%) or vegan (7%).^[61] A 2012 Gallup poll found 5% of Americans identify as vegetarian and 2% as vegan.^[62] A 2008 Harris Interactive poll found that 10% of adults “largely follow a vegetarian-inclined diet,” with 3.2% following a vegetarian diet and 0.5% identifying as vegans.^[63] A 2000 Zogby Poll found that 2.5% of respondents reported not eating meat, poultry, or fish; while 4.5 percent reported not eating meat.^[64]

Many children [in the United States] whose parents follow vegetarian diets follow them because of religious or ethical beliefs, for animal rights, or for the environment or other reasons.^[65] In the government’s first estimate^[66] of how many children avoid meat, the number is about 1 in 200.^[67]^[68] Also, the CDC survey included children ages 0 to 17 years. Possibly, older children are more likely to follow a vegetarian diet, so differences in age could explain some of the difference in results between the surveys.^[65]

U.S. vegetarian food sales (meat replacements such as soy milk and textured vegetable protein) doubled between 1998 and 2003, reaching $1.6 billion in 2003.^[69]

By U.S. law, food packaging is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, and generally must be labeled with a list of all its ingredients.^[70]^[71] However, there are exceptions. For example, certain trace ingredients that are “ingredients of ingredients” do not need to be listed.^[72]

References

^{^}^a^b^{UK Government Food Standards Agency. “Guidance on vegetarian and vegan labelling”. http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2006/apr/vegvegan. Retrieved 2008-12-29.}
^{^}^{Meng, Jenia (2009). Origins of attitudes towards animals Ultravisum (Ph.D. thesis). Brisbane: University of Queensland. pp. 249, 266. ISBN 978-0-9808425-1-7.}
^{^}^{Vegetarianism now a popular diet. 2006-05-17}
^{^}^{溫總理：低碳生活、每週一素－－學佛網. Big5.xuefo.net (2010-04-19). Retrieved on 2011-01-06.}
^{^}^{Greens Are Good For You, Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan), 25 September 2007}
^{^}^{Vegetarian entrepreneur succeeds with Web site, guidebook. The China Post (2009-11-16). Retrieved on 2011-01-06.}
^{^}^{Blogger: Aanmelden om te lezen. Taiwantalking.blogspot.com. Retrieved on 2011-01-06.}
^{^}^{Taiwan to enact world’s strictest law on veggie food labeling|Earth Times News. Earthtimes.org (2009-06-08). Retrieved on 2011-01-06.}
^{^}^{台灣周一無肉日救己救地球 – 日常保健 – 中時健康網 – 健康萬花筒. Health.chinatimes.com. Retrieved on 2011-01-06.}
^{^}^{台湾教育部提倡学校每周一素！. Chinavegan.com. Retrieved on 2011-01-06.}
^{^}^{The food habits of a nation The Hindu}
^{^}^{2.3 Growth and Concentration in India FAO Document Repository}
^{^}^{Passage to India USDA}
^{^}^a^b^{The Elephant Is Jogging: New Pressures for Agricultural Reform in India}
^{^}^{MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 4th April 2001.}
^{^}^{Bloodless coup as Indian vegetarians flex muscle July 14, 2007 The Age}
^{^}^{India textbook says meat-eaters lie and commit sex crimes, BBC News, 16 November 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20354669, retrieved 21 February 2013}
^{^}^{“Food For Thought”, May. 06, 2008, “National Vegetarian Week” on NVW http://www.vegetarianweek.com.au/}
^{^}^{Vegetarian meals and recipes from Vegie Delights Sanitarium Health Food Company}
^{^}^{2010 Australian survey from Newspoll results summary}
^{^}^{The New Zealand Vegetarian Society (NZVS)“What Is a Vegetarian” Retrieved 7 October 2012.}
^{^}^{“Living a Good Life : To be a vegetarian in New Zealand” P. Bidwell- New Zealand Vegetarian Society.}
^{^}^{Australia-New Zealand Co-operation. “Food safety: food regulations”. Retrieved 7 October 2012.}
^{^}^{“Belgian city plans ‘veggie’ days”, Chris Mason, BBC, May 12, 2009}
^{^}^{Renato Pichler “The French Government Outlaws Vegetarianism in Schools”, European Vegetarian Union (EVU), 14 October 2011.}
- ^{Also see}^{“The French Government Outlaws Vegetarianism in Schools”}^{, European Vegetarian and Animal News Alliance (EVANA).}
- ^{“Having Banned the Burqa, French Now Ban Les Veggies”}^{, Vegetarians’ International Voice for Animals (Viva!), 19 October 2011}
^{^}^{Haurant, Sandra (26 October 2011). “French government ‘banning vegetarianism’ in school canteens”. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2011/oct/26/french-government-banning-vegetarianism-schools. Retrieved 28 September 2012.}
^{^}^a^b^c^{Anne-Sophie Hottiaux, Agri-Food Trade Commissioner. “Exporting to the EU”. Canadian Consulate, Düsseldorf, Germany: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/blog/5787-eng.htm. Retrieved 16 June 2011.}
^{^}^{“How many Veggies … ?”. European Vegetarian Union. http://www.euroveg.eu/lang/en/info/howmany.php. Retrieved 17 May 2009.}
^{^}^a^b^{Bazzi, Adrianna (12 February 2009). “Vegetariano un italiano su dieci”. Corriere della Sera. http://www.corriere.it/salute/nutrizione/09_febbraio_12/italia_vegetariano_uno_su_dieci_9395e690-f8e1-11dd-bd31-00144f02aabc.shtml. Retrieved 16 June 2011.}
^{^}^{“Population counter”. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. 2008-04-24. http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/cijfers/extra/bevolkingsteller.htm?languageswitch=on. Retrieved 2008-04-24.}
^{^}^a^b^c^{“Antonie kamerling en marly van der velden meest sexy vegetariërs” (in Dutch). Wakker Dier. 2006-03-20. http://www.wakkerdier.nl/persbericht/283/Antonie_kamerling_en_marly_van_der_velden_meest_sexy_vegetari%EBrs/?id=283. Retrieved 2008-04-23.}
^{^}^{Becker, Sander. “Een dag geen vlees is een dag niet geleefd” (in Dutch). Trouw. http://www.trouw.nl/deverdieping/overigeartikelen/article847086.ece/Een_dag_geen_vlees_is_een_dag_niet_geleefd. Retrieved 2008-04-25.}
^{^}^{“Vegetarisme” http://www.vegetariers.nl/vegetarisme.aspx}
^{^}^{“Vegetarisch Keurmerk” http://www.vegetariers.nl/keurmerk.aspx}
^{^}^{“Wat is veganisme?” (in Dutch). Nederlandse Vereniging voor Veganisme. http://www.veganisme.org/?over_veganisme. Retrieved 2008-04-25.}
^{^}^{Vegetarianism in Portugal: a century of history European Vegetarian Union (English)}
^{^}^{Portugal: 30 000 Vegetarianos. Centrovegetariano.org. Retrieved on 2011-01-06.}
^{^}^{El español, lengua del mestizaje y la interculturalidad (Spanish)}
^{^}^{Vegetarian Times magazine, March 1994,(pgs 91-2).}
^{^}^a^b^{“Wie viele Vegetarier gibt es in der Schweiz?”. vegetarismus.ch. 2001. http://www.vegetarismus.ch/heft/2001-1/anzahl.htm. Retrieved 3 July 2011.}
^{^}^a^b^c^{“The rise of the non-veggie vegetarian”. BBC. 2009-11-05. Archived from the original on 2009-11-05. http://www.webcitation.org/5l3nNkfwC. Retrieved 2009-11-05.}
^{^}^{GfK Social Research (2009). Public Attitudes to Food survey 2009. Food Standards Agency. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publicattitudestofood.pdf. Retrieved 2009-05-31.}
^{^}^{Factors affecting food choice in relation to fruit and vegetable intake: a review J. Pollard, S. F. L. Kirk and J. E. Cade}
^{^}^{Survey looking into ‘Attitudes towards purchasing organic foods and vegetarianism by demographic sub group, 1992, by Mintel, London}
^{^}^a^b^{Perfil de mercado. Reino Unido. Entorno demográfico, social y económico (Spanish)}
^{^}^{The Vegetarian Society. “The History of vegetarianism in the UK”. http://www.vegsoc.org/members/history/150hist.html. Retrieved 2007-10-09.}
^{^}^{Food Standards Agency. “Guidance on the use of the terms ‘vegetarian’ and ‘vegan’ in food labelling”. http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/guidancenotes/labelregsguidance/vegiguidancenotes. Retrieved 2010-02-15.}
^{^}^{“Guidance on the use of the terms ‘vegetarian’ and ‘vegan’ in food labelling”, Food Standards Agency, Thursday 06 April 2006}
^{^}^{The Vegetarian Society. “Vegsoc Approved”. http://www.seedlingshowcase.com/corporate08/product_accreditation.asp. Retrieved 2010-02-14.}
^{^}^{“The Seedling Symbol: The original and only one to trust”, The Vegetarian Society (last accessed 2006/08/14)}
^{^}^{The Vegetarian Society. “Information Sheet: Cheese & Rennet”. http://www.vegsoc.org/info/cheese.html. Retrieved 2008-12-29.}
^{^}^a^b^{“IVU Online News”. International Vegetarian Union. November 2004. http://www.ivu.org/news/online/2004-10.html. Retrieved 28 June 2011.}
^{^}^{“Dia Mundial do Vegetarianismo: 8% da população brasileira afirma ser adepta do estilo [World Vegetarian Day: 8% of the Brazilian population claims to be adept of this lifestyle]“ (in Portuguese). Ibope. 1 October 2012. http://www.ibope.com.br/pt-br/noticias/Paginas/Dia-Mundial-do-Vegetarianismo-8-da-populacao-brasileira-afirma-ser-adepta-ao-estilo.aspx. Retrieved 3 October 2012.}
^{^}^{(Portuguese) Vegetarianism: an ethical and philosophical position – interview with Marly Winkler}
^{^}^{Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) (2004)}
^{^}^{Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, T. D.; Castel, Vincent (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ISBN 92-5-105571-8. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm. Retrieved August 19, 2008.}
^{^}^{Margulis, Sergio (2004) (PDF). Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. ISBN 0-8213-5691-7. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/02/02/000090341_20040202130625/Rendered/PDF/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf. Retrieved September 4, 2008.}
^{^}^{Barreto, P.; Souza Jr. C.; Noguerón, R.; Anderson, A. & Salomão, R. 2006. Human Pressure on the Brazilian Amazon Forests. Imazon. Retrieved September 28, 2006. (The Imazon web site contains many resources relating to the Brazilian Amazon.)}
^{^}^{“Vegetarian Restaurants in Brazil”. http://www.happycow.net/south_america/brazil/. Retrieved 2011-05-30.}
^{^}^{American Dietetic, Association; Dietitians Of, Canada (2003). “Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: vegetarian diets.”. Canadian journal of dietetic practice and research : a publication of Dietitians of Canada = Revue canadienne de la pratique et de la recherche en dietetique : une publication des Dietetistes du Canada 64 (2): 62–81. doi:10.3148/64.2.2003.62. PMID 12826028.}
^{^}^{Jensen, Tom (26 February 2013). “Food issues polarizing America”. Public Policy Polling. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/02/food-issues-polarizing-america.html. Retrieved 28 February 2013.}
^{^}^{“In U.S., 5% Consider Themselves Vegetarians. Even smaller 2% say they are vegans”}
^{^}^{Vegetarianism In America}
^{^}^{Feffer, Loren Butler. “Vegetarianism” Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 8. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2003. 1 pp. 10 vols.}
^{^}^a^b^{Mangels, Reed. “Nutrition Hotline: this issue’s Nutrition Hotline considers the number of children in the United States who are vegetarian, examines why the amount of calcium in greens varies among sources, and advises vegans with herpes zoster about foods containing lysine and arginine.” Vegetarian Journal 28 (July-Aug. 2009): p2(2). Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.}
^{^}^{http://finance.yahoo.com/news/First-US-count-finds-1-in-200-apf-14028470.html}
^{^}^{Erbe, Bonnie. “More Children Refuse to Eat Meat Than You’d Think, and for the Right Reasons. ” U.S. News & World Report Online. (Jan 13, 2009): NA. Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale.}
^{^}^{“Pass the tofu: 1 in 200 kids is vegetarian”. Associated Press. January 12, 2009. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28543713/. Retrieved 2009-01-13.}
^{^}^{Tatge, Mark, “Vegetarian foods plant stronger sales: No signs of slowing down for growing industry”, MSNBC, Sept. 17, 2004}
^{^}^{International Food Information Council (IFIC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (November 2004; revised April 2010). “Food Ingredients and Colors”. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/ucm094211.htm. Retrieved 2009-04-28.}
^{^}^{U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Food Labeling Guide”. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuide/default.htm. Retrieved 2010-03-26.}
^{^}^{U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Food Labeling Guide”. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuide/ucm064880.htm#declare. Retrieved 2010-03-26.}

[방사선] 유방암위험 여성, 30세전 X선촬영 위험

건강과대안 — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:46:27 +0000

유방암위험 여성, 30세전 X선촬영 위험

연합뉴스 | 한성간 | 입력 2012.09.08 10:40

(런던 AP=연합뉴스) 유방암 위험이 큰 BRCA1 또는 BRCA2 변이유전자를 가진 여성은 30세 전엔 유방X선 검사나 흉부X선 촬영을 하지 말아야 한다는 연구결과가 나왔다.

네덜란드 암연구소의 아나우크 피이페(Anouk Pijpe) 박사는 이 변이유전자를 가진 여성이 20대에 방사선에 흉부가 노출되면 같은 변이유전자를 가졌지만 X선에 노출되지 않은 여성에 비해 유방암 발생위험이 평균 43% 높아진다고 밝혔다.

만약 20세 이전에 X선에 노출되는 경우는 유방암 위험이 62%로 더욱 높아지는 것으로 나타났다.

피이페 박사는 영국, 네덜란드, 스페인 등 유럽 여러 나라의 18세 이상 여성 약2천명을 대상으로 실시한 조사분석 결과 이 같은 사실이 밝혀졌다고 말했다.

그러나 이런 여성이 30~39세에 방사선에 노출되는 경우에는 유방암 위험이 더 이상 높아지지 않았다.

따라서 이 변이유전자를 가진 여성이 30세 이전에 흉부영상을 찍으려면 비이온화 방사선 영상기술인 자기공명영상(MRI)을 이용해야 할 것이라고 피이페 박사는 강조했다.

이 변이유전자를 가진 여성은 그렇지 않아도 일반 여성에 비해 유방암이 나타날 위험이 5배 정도 높다.

이 유전자는 원래 DNA에 문제가 발생했을 때 이를 수리하는 기능을 수행하기 때문에 이 유전자가 변이되면 방사선에 더 민감해져 쉽게 손상될 수 있다고 피이페 박사는 설명했다.

이 연구결과는 영국 의학 저널(British Medical Journal) 최신호(9월6일자)에 실렸다.

skhan@yna.co.kr

(끝)

[반핵의사회] 핵발전소 주변 거주 여성 갑상선암 발생률 2.5배 높다.

건강과대안 — Sat, 12 May 2012 17:55:15 +0000

[성명] 핵발전소 주변 거주 주민들 여성 갑상선암 발생률 2.5배 높다.

- 반핵의사회 주영수 교수팀 2011년의 ‘원전종사자∙주민 역학조사’ 재검증 결과 발표 -

5
월 11일 가톨릭대학교 서울성모병원에서 열린 대한직업환경의학회 춘계학술대회에서 주영수 교수(한림대) 등은 2011년도에 발표된
‘원전 종사자 및 주변지역 주민 역학조사 연구’(연구책임자, 서울의대 안윤옥 교수)의 내용과 결과를 원자료부터 재검토하고 다시
분석한 결과 핵발전소 주변 지역에 거주하는 여성들에게서 갑상선암 발생률이 다른 지역에 비해 명백히 높다는 사실을 밝혀냈다.

재검토 결과, 전국의 핵발전소에서 일하는 노동자들은 일반인들에 비해 염색체 이상이 두 배 가까이 높다는 점, 그리고 핵발전소 주변에 거주하는 여성들의 경우 갑상선암 발생률이 2.5배나 높았다는 사실이 밝혀졌다.

이는 지난해 정부가 이 보고서를 발표하며 핵발전소가 주변 지역 주민들의 건강에 영향을 끼친다는 ‘증거가 없다’라는 원래 연구의 결론을 완전히 뒤집는 것이다.

이번에 밝혀진 연구 결과는 정부 보고서의 본문 내용에도 이미 일부 내용이 포함돼 있던 것들이다. 그런데 정부는 이를 알고
있으면서도 결론에서는 핵발전소가 건강에 미치는 영향이 없다고 한 바 있다. 이명박 정부가 핵발전소 확대계획을 위해 연구내용에 따른
연구결과를 왜곡한 것이다. 이명박 정부는 수십억 원의 예산을 투입해 무려 20년에 걸쳐 이뤄진 소중한 연구 결과를 완전히
무의미한 연구로 만들려했다.

또한 일부 연구자들은 조사 대상이 된 핵발전소 주변 주민들 중 건강한 사람들보다 암에 걸린 환자들이 더 많이 조사에 포함되는
‘검출오류’(detection bias)가 있었을 것이라고 주장했지만 이번의 재검증 결과 이런 오류는 없는 것으로 밝혀졌다. 오히려
20년 동안 새로운 연구대상자들을 모집하면서 암에 걸린 사람들을 제외시켰기 때문에 실제로는 전체 주민 중 건강한 사람들을
대상으로 조사가 이루어진 사실이 밝혀졌다. 연구가 암 발생률을 거꾸로 축소할 수 있는 방식으로 이루어진 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고
핵발전소 주변 거주 여성들의 갑상선 암 발생률이 2.5배나 높게 나왔다는 것은 핵발전소 존재자체가 주변 주민들의 암 발생률을
높인다는 명백한 증거다.

전 세계적으로 핵발전소 주변에 거주하는 주민들이 암에 걸릴 확률이 높아진다는 사실은 새로운 것은 아니다. 지금까지 연구된 바에
따르면 지극히 소량의 방사능에 노출되더라도 거의 모든 종류의 암에 걸릴 확률이 높아진다는 사실은 명백하다. 또 국내에 있는
핵발전소에서 방사능이 누출되는 사고가 여러 차례 벌어졌다는 사실도 널리 알려져 있다.

이 때문에 우리는 감상선 암뿐만 아니라 다른 암의 발생률은 어떠한지, 또 암이 아닌 다른 질병 발생의 가능성은 없는지 등과 관련한 전면적인 연구의 재검증과 이를 위한 핵심자요의 공개를 요구한다.

이번 재검증 결과는 핵발전소의 대형사고가 나지 않아도 주변 주민들의 건강에 치명적인 영향을 줄 수 있다는 가능성을 명백히
보여준 것이다. 더욱이 후쿠시마 사고는 심지어 세계 최고 수준의 안전 감시도 핵발전소의 위험을 근본에서 막을 수 없다는 사실을
보여 줬다. 핵발전소의 존재자체가 건강에 대한 위험이다.

이에따라 우리는 다음과 같이 요구한다.

- 주민 건강에 치명적인 악영향을 주는 핵발전소는 모두 폐쇄돼야 한다.

- 정부는 ‘원전 종사자 및 주변지역 주민 역학조사 연구’의 신뢰성과 정확성을 검증할 민간 검증단을 구성하라.

- 이를 위해 주소 자료 등 연구 과정에서 취합된 주민 건강 연구에 필요한 핵심 자료를 즉각 공개하라.

- 정부는 핵발전소 주변 거주민 전체를 대상으로 한 건강영향 평가를 당장 실시하라.

2012년 5월 11일

핵없는세상을위한의사회(반핵의사회) / 환경운동연합 / 김상희 의원실

[공장식 축산업] 지속가능한 육류의 신화 (뉴욕타임즈)

건강과대안 — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 01:17:32 +0000

텍사스 주립대학교의 제임스 E 맥윌리암스 교수가 2012년 4월 12일자 <뉴욕타임즈>에 기고한
“지속가능한 육류의 신화”라는 제목의 글입니다. (공장식 축산을 비판하는 것이 아니라 채식을
옹호하면서 육식 그 자체를 비판하는 입장이라고 볼 수 있습니다)

그는 채식주의를 옹호하며 유기농이나 자연순환 농법에 의한 가축사육으로 생산된 육류도
지구온난화와 환경오염을 일으키며… 이러한 육류가 지속가능하다는 것은 신화라고 주장
하고 있습니다.

이러한 주장의 근거로 풀을 먹여서 사육한 소들도 곡물을 먹여서 사육한 소들과 마찬가지로
병원성 대장균이나 살모넬라균으로부터 자유롭지 않으며, 풀을 먹여 사육한 소는 곡물을 먹여 사육한 소보다 지구온난화를 일으키는 온실가스를 20％나 더 배출한다는 사실을 들고 있습니다.

미국에서 사육되고 있는 1억 마리의 소들에게 풀을 먹이기 위해서 10에이커의 땅이 필요하다고
가정한다면 소들이 미국 국토의 50%를 차지할 것이라는 주장입니다.

======================

The Myth of Sustainable Meat

By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS

출처 : 뉴욕타임즈 Published: April 12, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/the-myth-of-sustainable-meat.html

THE industrial production of animal products is nasty business. From mad cow, E. coli and salmonella to soil erosion, manure runoff and pink slime, factory farming is the epitome of a broken food system.

There have been various responses to these horrors, including some recent attempts to improve the industrial system, like the announcement this week that farmers will have to seek prescriptions for sick animals instead of regularly feeding antibiotics to all stock. My personal reaction has been to avoid animal products completely. But most people upset by factory farming have turned instead to meat, dairy and eggs from nonindustrial sources. Indeed, the last decade has seen an exciting surge in grass-fed, free-range, cage-free and pastured options. These alternatives typically come from small organic farms, which practice more humane methods of production. They appeal to consumers not only because they reject the industrial model, but because they appear to be more in tune with natural processes.

For all the strengths of these alternatives, however, they’re ultimately a poor substitute for industrial production. Although these smaller systems appear to be environmentally sustainable, considerable evidence suggests otherwise.

Grass-grazing cows emit considerably more methane than grain-fed cows. Pastured organic chickens have a 20 percent greater impact on global warming. It requires 2 to 20 acres to raise a cow on grass. If we raised all the cows in the United States on grass (all 100 million of them), cattle would require (using the figure of 10 acres per cow) almost half the country’s land (and this figure excludes space needed for pastured chicken and pigs). A tract of land just larger than France has been carved out of the Brazilian rain forest and turned over to grazing cattle. Nothing about this is sustainable.

Advocates of small-scale, nonindustrial alternatives say their choice is at least more natural. Again, this is a dubious claim. Many farmers who raise chickens on pasture use industrial breeds that have been bred to do one thing well: fatten quickly in confinement. As a result, they can suffer painful leg injuries after several weeks of living a “natural” life pecking around a large pasture. Free-range pigs are routinely affixed with nose rings to prevent them from rooting, which is one of their most basic instincts. In essence, what we see as natural doesn’t necessarily conform to what is natural from the animals’ perspectives.

The economics of alternative animal systems are similarly problematic. Subsidies notwithstanding, the unfortunate reality of commodifying animals is that confinement pays. If the production of meat and dairy was somehow decentralized into small free-range operations, common economic sense suggests that it wouldn’t last. These businesses — no matter how virtuous in intention — would gradually seek a larger market share, cutting corners, increasing stocking density and aiming to fatten animals faster than competitors could. Barring the strictest regulations, it wouldn’t take long for production systems to scale back up to where they started.

All this said, committed advocates of alternative systems make one undeniably important point about the practice called “rotational grazing” or “holistic farming”: the soil absorbs the nutrients from the animals’ manure, allowing grass and other crops to grow without the addition of synthetic fertilizer. As Michael Pollan writes, “It is doubtful you can build a genuinely sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients.” In other words, raising animals is not only sustainable, but required.

But rotational grazing works better in theory than in practice. Consider Joel Salatin, the guru of nutrient cycling, who employs chickens to enrich his cows’ grazing lands with nutrients. His plan appears to be impressively eco-correct, until we learn that he feeds his chickens with tens of thousands of pounds a year of imported corn and soy feed. This common practice is an economic necessity. Still, if a farmer isn’t growing his own feed, the nutrients going into the soil have been purloined from another, most likely industrial, farm, thereby undermining the benefits of nutrient cycling.

Finally, there is no avoiding the fact that the nutrient cycle is interrupted every time a farmer steps in and slaughters a perfectly healthy manure-generating animal, something that is done before animals live a quarter of their natural lives. When consumers break the nutrient cycle to eat animals, nutrients leave the system of rotationally grazed plots of land (though of course this happens with plant-based systems as well). They land in sewer systems and septic tanks (in the form of human waste) and in landfills and rendering plants (in the form of animal carcasses).

Farmers could avoid this waste by exploiting animals only for their manure, allowing them to live out the entirety of their lives on the farm, all the while doing their own breeding and growing of feed. But they’d better have a trust fund.

Opponents of industrialized agriculture have been declaring for over a decade that how humans produce animal products is one of the most important environmental questions we face. We need a bolder declaration. After all, it’s not how we produce animal products that ultimately matters. It’s whether we produce them at all.

James E. McWilliams is the author of “Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 13, 2012, on page A31 of the New York edition with the headline: The Myth of Sustainable Meat.

[참고] 공장식 축산업 관련 뉴욕타임즈 기사 모음

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/factory_farming/index.html